No, because you are mischaracterizing my positions again.
I didn't say "somebody else" was behind 9/11. That was never my claim and implying that it was is a form of lying. I merely claimed that there were things about it we weren't told, which is a very different argument.
And there are several possible legitimate reasons why the document on the Whitehouse website might have been manipulated. (It's not his "birth certificate".) And if that's true, then it's not important at all who did it.
Good grief, Jane. As I've repeatedly explained [slashdot.org], the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 1. I wasn't lying or being blatantly dishonest. I was trying to show you how to check your work.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Of course it does. But our discussion was not about an emissivity of 1, as you well know. This is completely irrelevant to anything going on here.
Again, Jane appears to be saying that "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out". If that's the case, then those terms would cancel as Jane claims. That's the only way to get from "power in = power out" to Jane's final equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out
No. Why are you trying to lecture me about what I told you? And getting it wrong, as well?
Here is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, as related to radiant energy: net incoming radiation from cooler bodies is ALL either reflected, transmitted, or scattered. Any absorption and re-transmission is part of the "transmitted" term. And this is where (as evidenced below) you're getting it all wrong, for 2 reasons: first, because at steady-state, the relation given above already accounts for any radiative power being absorbed from other bodies. And second, when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. This is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, this is NOT the same as saying "no radiation absorbed at all". But when you put the two points above together, what it does mean is that ZERO of the radiative power output from the above equation is coming from other bodies. THE AMOUNT OF POWER OUTPUT IN THIS EQUATION DOES NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR POWER FROM THE WALLS, BECAUSE THE NET IS ZERO.
The rest of your comment is just more blather along these same lines. You're trying to count the same power terms twice. I've already shown you how your figures do not add up.
You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist.
The fact that this information exists is not, of course, license for the government to be snarfing it up willy-nilly. They should have to get a warrant.
If it can't be retrieved and reworked easily, then it was badly stored and organised in the first place...
That's not the problem. They DON'T WANT to give people this data. Because once they do, everyone will demand it, and wives will be filing for divorces over it, spawning lawsuits... etc.
Let's put this in perspective: for decades, Ma Bell here in the U.S. denied, even to government, that they had complete records of who called whom, and when for every telephone in the country. In fact this led to the whole thing in TV and movie dramas of "keep them on the line long enough to trace the call". Calls actually haven't needed to be "traced" since the 1960s, but nobody told the government. This led to some huge lawsuits, when an electronics technician accidentally stumbled onto a manual for the machines that were used to compile the phone records.
How many murders, kidnaps, etc. were never solved because the government did not know this information existed?
When asked why they never told anybody, phone company representatives said they didn't want customers to know they had the information to give them itemized bills.
Never underestimate the nefariousness of large corporate execs.
Or technically, it was not cool the way the government went after him for the wrong crime. If they had pursued his ass for the stalking and harassment, that'd be just fine.
THIS!
Stalking, harassment, including "doxxing" which is a product of both, is not just uncool, courts have ruled it criminal. And in most places there are specific statutes against it.
Are either of those articles "proper"? Everything they say about methane presents it in a way that shows the largest possible, most scare-mongering numbers.
They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.
And the part where Jane insisted that "we should use real materials with real emissivities and absorptivies. Just to keep everybody honest.
Suggesting that we "should" is not insisting. I wanted to use real materials. You refused and wanted to use gray bodies. We could have used black bodies as well. I didn't really care that much. But YOU insisted because you stated that we had to have emissivity.
Apparently that was because the equations you wanted to use (also apparently, from Wikipedia) had an emissivity term. Or maybe it was the MIT infinite-plane equations. Whatever. Regardless, you wouldn't use real materials with absorptivity but insisted on having an emissivity term. So gray-bodies it was. I do have it on record.
But black bodies aren't "dishonest". Also, Jane should make sure to include the part where Jane said I was "lying again" for considering a black body source.
Just no. "To keep everybody honest" is a figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally. And no, I didn't say you were lying again for "considering" black bodies. I would have been happy to use black bodies but real materials would have been -- wait for it -- more realistic. The reason I said you were "lying" was because of this exchange:
Jane probably won't write down an equation describing electrical heating power for a blackbody source, so I'll try to guess at Jane's reasoning.
It's not a "black body" source, it's a "gray body" source, as per our agreement when this discussion first started. And I showed you my equations not just once but many times.
I didn't write down an equation for a blackbody source because we had agreed to use gray bodies. Claiming that I "probably won't" write down a black body equation is a form of lying by implication, because we weren't discussing black bodies! By your own insistence. It was just another straw-man argument, AND blatant dishonesty at the same time. I have a copy of our AGREEMENT to treat all the materials as gray bodies, in black and white. So your claim that I "probably won't" include a black-body equation, when I HAD shown you the gray-body equations I used, is just another dishonest way to distort the argument.
Jane, just two days ago you claimed that you didn't say radiative power out was the same as electrical heating power, and that they don't need to be the same. Today you're saying they are the same.
Another dishonest distortion of our actual exchange, which went like this:
Seriously, "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power". For instance, we agree that "radiative power out" stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F, but "electrical heating power" goes to zero. So they can't be the same.
I didn't say they were the same. They don't need to be the same.
I hadn't said they were the same, under those circumstances, but those circumstances never occur in Spencer's experiment. As I have explained to you many times now, this is a straw-man argument. I Spencer's experiment, if A is the heat source and B is the chamber wall, then Ta^4 is always greater than Tb^4. There is no point at which Ta^4 - Tb^4 = 0 or Ta^4 - Tb^4 < 0.
So this is a 100% straw-man argument, and has no relevance to the discussion. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie.
If that's what you think, could you take a few seconds to write down the energy conservation equation (before cancelling terms) that you think is correct?
I could, but I will not. First, it's not "what I think", it's what the experts say (and some write, in textbooks). Second, I'm not going to take valuable time out of my day to try to "prove" textbook thermodynamics to you, any more than I am going to try to "prove" to you, related to my previous example,
Not just about Ruby (which is still among the top 10 popular languages, and shows absolutely no sign of fading), but also about Twitter.
Twitter is a hodgepodge of languages, depending on just what "part" of Twitter you're talking about. For example, search is now done in Java. Some of the back-end is done in Scala. Etc.
Further, when one of the Twitter founders decided to switch part of the system from Rails (which is not the same as "Ruby") to Scala, he did so because he didn't understand how to properly do it in Rails.
Perf tests using the same kind of system in Scala, and Rails done properly, showed virtually identical results. But Twitter had already switched over.
It's no surprise at all that Java works faster in most ways than interpreted languages in general. Big deal. (That's why, by the way, jRuby exists... so you can pre-compile your apps if you want to and get Java speed.)
Ruby is an active, vibrant, and still growing community. It is still one of the most popular language.Not only did TFA get history wrong, it conflates Rails with Ruby, which is like saying Django and PHP are the same things, or that JavaScript and Node.js are the same things. It's all just BS.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
Hahaha! Building 7 wasn't a "9/11 attack"!!! It didn't even occur to me you were talking about that. I have the owner of the building on video saying they took it down. So who indeed should we believe? You, or that same owner of the building saying it himself??? Please explain to me why he should lie to the news.
Hahahahaha! Hell, I thought you were talking about the terrorist attack. That's what most people mean when they say "9/11". Not the bullshit that happened afterward.
Seems like a distinction without a difference.
Only to those who don't know what the hell they're talking about. If you did, you'd know why it makes all the difference in the world.
Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.
I don't give the slightest damn who YOU use as a barometer. My only interest is making sure facts get out to people who care about the facts.
Let's see now: we have the owner of Building 7 saying publicly to the news that they took the building down.
We have incontrovertible evidence that the document presented as Obama's birth certificate on the Whitehouse website is a document that was intentionally, digitally manipulated. (No claims here about WHY. There could be legitimate reasons.)
And we have you trying to make fun of someone who was just saying those were facts.
Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.
I have it on record where you insisted that we assume gray bodies so that we could include a term for emissivity. Seriously. You insisted. I'm not going to look it up this late at night, because you are getting completely ridiculous. But I am sure as hell going to include it in my publication.
The crucial assumption isn't 100% efficiency, it's that nothing inside the boundary is changing. If not, power in != power out. Either way, conservation of energy doesn't imply that "if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in." Otherwise it would apply to black bodies, and that isn't true. Otherwise it would apply even if that source is warming, so power in > power out, but that isn't true either.
Now you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again. All along we have been discussing a system at steady-state, so your introduction of "if that source is warming" is 100% irrelevant to the conversation. You're straw-manning again.
Once again, Jane confuses "radiative power out" which depends only on emissivity and temperature, with "electrical heating power" which goes to zero if the chamber walls are also at 150F.
I'm not confusing anything. Since the walls never ARE at 150F, this is another straw-man. You're suggesting that it's a gradual process, but it's not. You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before. That's at least 2 so far.
Jane coyly says that my attempt to understand Jane's energy conservation equation doesn't even remotely resemble Jane's super-secret energy conservation equation. Which he still refuses to write down.
There's nothing super-secret about it, and I've given it to you about 30 times now. My energy conservation equation is this:
electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out
There you have it. Conservation of power, which isn't strictly necessary, except that because this is steady-state, at any given instant energy is conserved.
You're trying to make it lots more complicated than it really is.
Then, once again, Jane writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only determines "radiative power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation to show how it relates to "electrical heating power".
Utter nonsense. Not only did I just do it now, I have explained this to you many times before.
Jane still hasn't written down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the heated source which links "electrical heating power" to "radiative power out".
Yes, I have. I have done it at least several times before, and I just did it again. Not only did I give you the equations, I showed you my exact calculations.
Why are you lying again, and trying to claim I did not do something that I very clearly and provably did do?
In fact, since you seem to be so obsessed with archiving other people's comments, I am sure you have several instances of where I've showed this to you before.
If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel.
Why do that? Nobody does that. That's stupid.
If you're publishing an equation for calculating P, and you have an additive term on one side of the equation, which is exactly cancleled out by an additive term on the other side of an equation, you don't include them, you cancel them.
If I'm showing you the equation for calculating the volume of a sphere, I don't write it like this:
Volume = Z + (4/3 * pi * r^3) - Z
That would be STUPID. I publish the equation this way:
Volume = 4/3 * pi * r^3
Similarly, the equation for radiant power emittance at steady state does NOT say "X + ( (epsilon * sigma) * T^4) - X". It simply says (epsilon * sigma) * T^4. Because it's already known that X cancels out!!! There is no NET absorption of radiative power from cooler bodies. WE KNOW THIS FROM THERMODYNAMICS. So any radiative power that comes in, goes right back out. That's YOUR power in = power out!
You are trying to count power incoming from a cooler body as part of the radiative power out of the hotter body. That's counting it twice. I told you that... what was it now? 3 weeks ago? A month? And I told you not just once but several times.
That's just wrong. The number is the same regardless of the presence or absence of any cooler bodies.
And since nearby cooler bodes do NOT supply and net input to the hotter body, and do NOT affect the radiant power output of the hotter body, they do NOT affect any power input to the hotter body. QED
Who should we believe... The guy who thinks that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that Obama faked his birth certificate, or the scientists.... Tough choice...
Who should we believe? Someone who gives the textbook answers to physics questions, or somebody who publicly lies about what other people wrote?
[A] I did not state that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. I merely stated that evidence indicates that we weren't told the whole truth about it. And the evidence does in fact indicate that. I did NOT, however, despite your claim here to the contrary, pretend to know what that truth is. So that's lie #1.
[B] I did not claim Obama faked his birth certificate. I DID state that the document posted on the internet by the Whitehouse as Obama's birth certificate has been digitally manipulated, not just "scanned". Because... it has. I downloaded it and examined it myself. There is zero chance it was a mere scan into Adobe Illustrator, as the Whitehouse claimed.
HOWEVER, I also stated, several times, that there are some perfectly legitimate reasons why the document might have been manipulated. So... I DID NOT claim "Obama's birth certificate is fake". That's lie #2.
[C] It isn't about who we should "believe", anyway. It's about what the evidence says.
[D] For somebody who claims to not be the same person as "khayman80", you sure show up in a lot of his conversations, and link to a lot of his old comments. Just EXACTLY in the same way he does.
You also like to ad-hominem, just as you did here, and just like he does. (In fact you linked to one of his huge ad-hominem attacks. And before you say "that's not ad-hominem", yes it is. Because you're asking "Who should we believe?" That's the whole of your "argument". It's not just ad-hominem it's 100% pure textbook ad-hominem.
So who, indeed, should we believe? The person with the evidence, or the people with straw-man and ad-hominem arguments?
For example, black body [archive.today] "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.
Not according to my thermodynamics textbooks. Simply stating this, and linking to yourself stating it again elsewhere, isn't any kind of argument.
In analyzing Spencer's challenge, we could have assumed black bodies. The only reason we didn't was because YOU insisted that you wanted to include an emissivity figure. But it still doesn't change the general principle.
In this particular case, the only substantive difference between black bodies and gray bodies is the presence of an emissivity term. Big deal. For black-body radiant power emittance per unit area, you simply omit the emissivity and get: sigma * T^4. The only change amounts to somewhat different figures for power out, and therefore electrical power in. There is still no absorption of any NET radiant power from the cooler chamber walls. That hasn't changed.
Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in?
Conservation of energy. Your own idea of power in through a boundary = power out through that boundary.
If your boundary is around JUST the heat source, the only NET power in is electricity, and the only NET power out is radiation. I see absolutely no reason (if we assume 100% efficiency) that these should not be equal.
At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)
This does not even remotely resemble my equation. The textbook thermodynamic answer is: radiant power out at steady-state, per unit area, equals (emissivity * Stefan-Boltzmann constant) * T^4.
That's all. The end. No chamber walls (they're cooler so they add no net energy to the heat source).
So total power out = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area
That's my equation. That's all the textbooks say I need. That's all heat transfer experts say I need.
Your continued assertion that, at steady-state, the presence of a nearby cooler body somehow affects the power output of a warmer body at known temperature is a bizarre violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The power output is what it is. It depends only on emissivity and temperature. Cooler bodies do not affect it. And if they don't affect the power out, they aren't affecting the power in. Again: your own power in = power out principle. QED
I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show.
As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.
Huh? Are you reading the same page I am? According to the page linked to by OP, the deep ocean HASN'T warmed. Quote:
From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.
The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.
The direct implication -- in fact their conclusion -- was that there WAS NO warming in the deep ocean at all.
I dislike replying to trolls. But for the record and anyone who might actually buy your bullshit, your statements should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
I dislike replying to trolls, too, but I'm doing it anyway. Am I a nice person, or what?
The Antarctic ice maximum is SEA ice, just a thin sheet a meter or two thick, consistent with higher winds (guess why- increased thermal gradients) leaving source water exposed to the atmosphere.
I know what sea ice is. Are YOU aware that sea ice occurs around the (generally) warmest areas in Antarctica? And that it takes a constant -2 degrees C to form? You know what the temperatures have been over the LAND areas this year? Please look it up and tell me how that could add up to "melting".
Satellite data show that the land ice sheets have been adding mass just about every year for decades. The general trend of Antarctic ice has been up, not down. Even when they were screaming a couple of years ago about the Ross shelf and the western ice, the eastern ice was growing faster.
There is ALWAYS something you can point to and scream, and if you do it convincingly enough, lots of people will believe.
But the actual data do not support anything near panic over warming. I'd be willing to wager I've spent about 100 times as many hours looking at the data on this as you have.
In fact, if you're in the Northern hemisphere, if I were you I'd make sure my snow shovel is handy. Snow cover in SEPTEMBER was at an all-time high in the N. hemisphere this year.
Are you sure about that? People usually say the sea ice is increasing in extent, but that the land ice (the bit that might raise sea levels) is shrinking rapidly.
NASA and its climate partners (like GISS, NCDC) have been saying that. I don't know who else is saying that, unless they're quoting those sources.
RECORD sea ice this year. Sea ice forms around the generally WARMEST locations in Antarctic (lowest altitude, near the sea), and even so requires a consistent -2 degrees C to form. How is the rest supposed to be melting if it's colder than that?
Granted, temperature is not distributed completely evenly, and SOME part of the Antarctic is always melting. This allows the alarmists to scream and cry about the part that is. But the rest isn't. Quite the contrary: even when the alarmists were screaming about the "massive" melting of the Western Antarctic land ice sheet, the Eastern Antarctic was gaining more ice than the West was losing.
Of course it's Spring now in the Antarctic, and that will give the alarmists something to scream about as the record ice retreats a little. But if it's anything like the Northern Hemisphere was this year, even in summer it will continue to set new highs.
As for the other hemisphere lately:
They shouldn't. The alternative explainations as to where that energy is going are far more concerning. If the energy is not being disipated into the deeper oceans, then its being concentrated elsewhere. Candidates include: Siberian traps. Arctic/Antarctic pole melt. Upper ocean (And thats an "oh shit" possibility), and so on.
No, because we aren't actually observing any of those things. Antarctic ice recently set a historic record. And not just sea ice, either. Satellite data has been showing the land volume to be growing too. Arctic is is pretty darned normal. (Not quite at the 1981-2010 average, but pretty damned close.)
If the "missing" energy were in the upper ocean we would have known about it long ago, because we've been keeping upper ocean temperature records for decades.
Deep ocean was pretty much the last gasp for the "missing heat" idea. There may be other out-there possibilities, each one remoter than the next. So it's not impossible. Just very, very, very unlikely.
Allow my naivete to shine: What's the temperature of all of the rock that water is in contact with, and what's its thermal capacity relative to the water? Could it be that it's slow to warm as you need to warm all the rock it's in contact with?
Without getting technical, heat capacity is called "specific heat", and water has a relatively high specific heat. Using similar units, here are some examples:
Granite: 0.79
Basalt: 0.84
Sea Water: 3.93
So the heat "storage" capacity of liquid water is, very roughly, about 4.8 times that of rock.
Also just a phase change, from ice to water or vice versa at the same temperature, requires (or releases) a surprisingly large amount of energy.
It's hard to admit that you could've been wrong isn't it?
Especially after you've been gloating over your high horse position and have insulted everyone that disagreed.
Hah! You think this one is bad? I have stories.
But it does seem to be true: the term "denier" is increasingly pointing in the other direction now.
But the Stefan-Boltzmann law in your textbooks actually says:
radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T1^4.
Jane, don't you see how your equation for electrical heating power would only be true if "radiative power out = electrical heating power"?
This, from someone who keep saying "power in = power out"?
Of course I realize that. That is, TOTAL power out equals (power out per unit area) * area. When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron?
The problem with your theory is that you have failed to show that electrical power in = anything BUT power out. It isn't heat transfer, as you have several times asserted. Heat transfer to a cooler body has NO relevance to the radiated power output of a warmer body at known temperature. And since it does not affect the power out, it does not affect the power in. QED.
You're trying to give me some crackpot story that the temperature of nearby bodies reduces the required INPUT power for the heat source. I understand what you're saying. I understood it from the beginning. You're just wrong, that's all. It would violate your own "power in = power out" rule. Which obviously you are not seeing, but which I saw right away.
Cooler bodies do NOT lend or transfer any net energy via radiation to warmer bodies. Period. Doing so would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, the only way a nearby cooler body could create some kind of condition of "less input power needed" for the warmer body, was via magic. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics. Because, again, this violates your "power in = power out" rule. If you draw your boundary around just the heat source itself, since there is NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN (which doesn't then just go right back OUT, yielding a net of 0), then the only way you can reduce your "electrical" power input is by violating the Second Law.
You're trying to play some kind of trick of adding the incoming radiation to the power output. But that's wrong. No NET incoming radiation is absorbed. Some may be absorbed, but it goes right back again, at equivalent radiant energy. But that power going back out again is not "added" to the object's radiant power, which is independent. Again, that would violate your "power in = power out" rule: you're counting it twice.
That is exactly WHY you can calculate power out of a gray body at steady-state with (e * s) * T^4. Because any incoming radiation is already accounted for. Which you aren't getting through your head, and so you're counting it twice.
And no, the cooler bodies don't "prevent" the hotter body from radiating exactly as much as it was radiating before. They don't "lend" their radiation to the hotter body.
ALL net energy flow in this system is from the center outward. There is no "backflow". It would violate the Second Law. And your "answer" for final temperature of the heat source did exactly that... you were "creating" something like 3kW (I forget the exact number now) from nothing.
And don't try to tell me you're calculating the TOTAL electrical power needed to both heat the source and cool the walls, because that would be a different experiment. Spencer stipulated "electrical power" to the heat source. He left power to the walls unstated, except to say that they are maintained at 0 degrees F. He did not say the power to the heat source AND to the walls was constant. He said the power to the heat source.
So if necessary, technically the power to the walls could vary, but not the power to the heat source. And if you're having a big issue with conservation of energy, that's probably where you're falling down.
You have kept trying to convince me that the cooler passive body somehow "holds the source power in" and thereby makes it hotter. But that's not the way it works. I repeat: EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you. Your own answer disagreed with you: it didn't balance the heat transfer equations, and power in <> power out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, do you think it's poisonous?
No, because you are mischaracterizing my positions again.
I didn't say "somebody else" was behind 9/11. That was never my claim and implying that it was is a form of lying. I merely claimed that there were things about it we weren't told, which is a very different argument.
And there are several possible legitimate reasons why the document on the Whitehouse website might have been manipulated. (It's not his "birth certificate".) And if that's true, then it's not important at all who did it.
Good grief, Jane. As I've repeatedly explained [slashdot.org], the gray body equation has to reduce to the black body equation when emissivity = 1. I wasn't lying or being blatantly dishonest. I was trying to show you how to check your work.
What does that have to do with ANYTHING? Of course it does. But our discussion was not about an emissivity of 1, as you well know. This is completely irrelevant to anything going on here.
Again, Jane appears to be saying that "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out". If that's the case, then those terms would cancel as Jane claims. That's the only way to get from "power in = power out" to Jane's final equation:
My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out
No. Why are you trying to lecture me about what I told you? And getting it wrong, as well?
Here is a fundamental principle of thermodynamics, as related to radiant energy: net incoming radiation from cooler bodies is ALL either reflected, transmitted, or scattered. Any absorption and re-transmission is part of the "transmitted" term. And this is where (as evidenced below) you're getting it all wrong, for 2 reasons: first, because at steady-state, the relation given above already accounts for any radiative power being absorbed from other bodies. And second, when this is the hottest body in the room, that figure is ZERO. Zero net radiation absorbed from other, cooler bodies. This is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Now, this is NOT the same as saying "no radiation absorbed at all". But when you put the two points above together, what it does mean is that ZERO of the radiative power output from the above equation is coming from other bodies. THE AMOUNT OF POWER OUTPUT IN THIS EQUATION DOES NOT NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR POWER FROM THE WALLS, BECAUSE THE NET IS ZERO.
The rest of your comment is just more blather along these same lines. You're trying to count the same power terms twice. I've already shown you how your figures do not add up.
You're either lying + trolling, or a sad excuse for a physicist.
I meant to add:
The fact that this information exists is not, of course, license for the government to be snarfing it up willy-nilly. They should have to get a warrant.
If it can't be retrieved and reworked easily, then it was badly stored and organised in the first place...
That's not the problem. They DON'T WANT to give people this data. Because once they do, everyone will demand it, and wives will be filing for divorces over it, spawning lawsuits... etc.
Let's put this in perspective: for decades, Ma Bell here in the U.S. denied, even to government, that they had complete records of who called whom, and when for every telephone in the country. In fact this led to the whole thing in TV and movie dramas of "keep them on the line long enough to trace the call". Calls actually haven't needed to be "traced" since the 1960s, but nobody told the government. This led to some huge lawsuits, when an electronics technician accidentally stumbled onto a manual for the machines that were used to compile the phone records.
How many murders, kidnaps, etc. were never solved because the government did not know this information existed?
When asked why they never told anybody, phone company representatives said they didn't want customers to know they had the information to give them itemized bills.
Never underestimate the nefariousness of large corporate execs.
Or technically, it was not cool the way the government went after him for the wrong crime. If they had pursued his ass for the stalking and harassment, that'd be just fine.
THIS!
Stalking, harassment, including "doxxing" which is a product of both, is not just uncool, courts have ruled it criminal. And in most places there are specific statutes against it.
Link to a proper article about it. http://news.agu.org/press-rele...
Are either of those articles "proper"? Everything they say about methane presents it in a way that shows the largest possible, most scare-mongering numbers.
They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.
If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.
I've seen this coming ever since Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission.
But no, that's not a joke.
Not only is Wikipedia not the authoritative answer to everything in the Universe, what it says doesn't even contradict what I said. At all.
I have nothing further to say here.
And the part where Jane insisted that "we should use real materials with real emissivities and absorptivies. Just to keep everybody honest.
Suggesting that we "should" is not insisting. I wanted to use real materials. You refused and wanted to use gray bodies. We could have used black bodies as well. I didn't really care that much. But YOU insisted because you stated that we had to have emissivity.
Apparently that was because the equations you wanted to use (also apparently, from Wikipedia) had an emissivity term. Or maybe it was the MIT infinite-plane equations. Whatever. Regardless, you wouldn't use real materials with absorptivity but insisted on having an emissivity term. So gray-bodies it was. I do have it on record.
But black bodies aren't "dishonest". Also, Jane should make sure to include the part where Jane said I was "lying again" for considering a black body source.
Just no. "To keep everybody honest" is a figure of speech, not intended to be taken literally. And no, I didn't say you were lying again for "considering" black bodies. I would have been happy to use black bodies but real materials would have been -- wait for it -- more realistic. The reason I said you were "lying" was because of this exchange:
Jane probably won't write down an equation describing electrical heating power for a blackbody source, so I'll try to guess at Jane's reasoning.
It's not a "black body" source, it's a "gray body" source, as per our agreement when this discussion first started. And I showed you my equations not just once but many times.
I didn't write down an equation for a blackbody source because we had agreed to use gray bodies. Claiming that I "probably won't" write down a black body equation is a form of lying by implication, because we weren't discussing black bodies! By your own insistence. It was just another straw-man argument, AND blatant dishonesty at the same time. I have a copy of our AGREEMENT to treat all the materials as gray bodies, in black and white. So your claim that I "probably won't" include a black-body equation, when I HAD shown you the gray-body equations I used, is just another dishonest way to distort the argument.
Jane, just two days ago you claimed that you didn't say radiative power out was the same as electrical heating power, and that they don't need to be the same. Today you're saying they are the same.
Another dishonest distortion of our actual exchange, which went like this:
Seriously, "radiative power out" is different than "electrical heating power". For instance, we agree that "radiative power out" stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F, but "electrical heating power" goes to zero. So they can't be the same.
I didn't say they were the same. They don't need to be the same.
I hadn't said they were the same, under those circumstances, but those circumstances never occur in Spencer's experiment. As I have explained to you many times now, this is a straw-man argument. I Spencer's experiment, if A is the heat source and B is the chamber wall, then Ta^4 is always greater than Tb^4. There is no point at which Ta^4 - Tb^4 = 0 or Ta^4 - Tb^4 < 0.
So this is a 100% straw-man argument, and has no relevance to the discussion. Your continued insistence that it does is a lie.
If that's what you think, could you take a few seconds to write down the energy conservation equation (before cancelling terms) that you think is correct?
I could, but I will not. First, it's not "what I think", it's what the experts say (and some write, in textbooks). Second, I'm not going to take valuable time out of my day to try to "prove" textbook thermodynamics to you, any more than I am going to try to "prove" to you, related to my previous example,
TFA is just plain wrong.
Not just about Ruby (which is still among the top 10 popular languages, and shows absolutely no sign of fading), but also about Twitter.
Twitter is a hodgepodge of languages, depending on just what "part" of Twitter you're talking about. For example, search is now done in Java. Some of the back-end is done in Scala. Etc.
Further, when one of the Twitter founders decided to switch part of the system from Rails (which is not the same as "Ruby") to Scala, he did so because he didn't understand how to properly do it in Rails.
Perf tests using the same kind of system in Scala, and Rails done properly, showed virtually identical results. But Twitter had already switched over.
It's no surprise at all that Java works faster in most ways than interpreted languages in general. Big deal. (That's why, by the way, jRuby exists... so you can pre-compile your apps if you want to and get Java speed.)
Ruby is an active, vibrant, and still growing community. It is still one of the most popular language.Not only did TFA get history wrong, it conflates Rails with Ruby, which is like saying Django and PHP are the same things, or that JavaScript and Node.js are the same things. It's all just BS.
I'm just sick and tired of your incessant lying about what went on before, and attempts to re-hash old arguments that you lost a long time ago.
I have nothing further to say to you at this time.
Jane1:
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
Hahaha! Building 7 wasn't a "9/11 attack"!!! It didn't even occur to me you were talking about that. I have the owner of the building on video saying they took it down. So who indeed should we believe? You, or that same owner of the building saying it himself??? Please explain to me why he should lie to the news.
Hahahahaha! Hell, I thought you were talking about the terrorist attack. That's what most people mean when they say "9/11". Not the bullshit that happened afterward.
Seems like a distinction without a difference.
Only to those who don't know what the hell they're talking about. If you did, you'd know why it makes all the difference in the world.
Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.
I don't give the slightest damn who YOU use as a barometer. My only interest is making sure facts get out to people who care about the facts.
Let's see now: we have the owner of Building 7 saying publicly to the news that they took the building down.
We have incontrovertible evidence that the document presented as Obama's birth certificate on the Whitehouse website is a document that was intentionally, digitally manipulated. (No claims here about WHY. There could be legitimate reasons.)
And we have you trying to make fun of someone who was just saying those were facts.
Yep. Sure enough. That says "denier" to me.
Again, I originally assumed black bodies because they're simpler: black bodies don't reflect any radiation. That means "power in" depends on the chamber walls and "power out" through that boundary only depends on the heat source.
I have it on record where you insisted that we assume gray bodies so that we could include a term for emissivity. Seriously. You insisted. I'm not going to look it up this late at night, because you are getting completely ridiculous. But I am sure as hell going to include it in my publication.
The crucial assumption isn't 100% efficiency, it's that nothing inside the boundary is changing. If not, power in != power out. Either way, conservation of energy doesn't imply that "if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in." Otherwise it would apply to black bodies, and that isn't true. Otherwise it would apply even if that source is warming, so power in > power out, but that isn't true either.
Now you're just speaking gibberish, AND contradicting yourself again. All along we have been discussing a system at steady-state, so your introduction of "if that source is warming" is 100% irrelevant to the conversation. You're straw-manning again.
Once again, Jane confuses "radiative power out" which depends only on emissivity and temperature, with "electrical heating power" which goes to zero if the chamber walls are also at 150F.
I'm not confusing anything. Since the walls never ARE at 150F, this is another straw-man. You're suggesting that it's a gradual process, but it's not. You're just repeating the same BS straw-man arguments you made before. That's at least 2 so far.
Jane coyly says that my attempt to understand Jane's energy conservation equation doesn't even remotely resemble Jane's super-secret energy conservation equation. Which he still refuses to write down.
There's nothing super-secret about it, and I've given it to you about 30 times now. My energy conservation equation is this:
electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out
There you have it. Conservation of power, which isn't strictly necessary, except that because this is steady-state, at any given instant energy is conserved.
You're trying to make it lots more complicated than it really is.
Then, once again, Jane writes down the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which only determines "radiative power out" without even trying to write down an energy conservation equation to show how it relates to "electrical heating power".
Utter nonsense. Not only did I just do it now, I have explained this to you many times before.
Jane still hasn't written down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the heated source which links "electrical heating power" to "radiative power out".
Yes, I have. I have done it at least several times before, and I just did it again. Not only did I give you the equations, I showed you my exact calculations.
Why are you lying again, and trying to claim I did not do something that I very clearly and provably did do?
In fact, since you seem to be so obsessed with archiving other people's comments, I am sure you have several instances of where I've showed this to you before.
If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel.
Why do that? Nobody does that. That's stupid.
If you're publishing an equation for calculating P, and you have an additive term on one side of the equation, which is exactly cancleled out by an additive term on the other side of an equation, you don't include them, you cancel them.
If I'm showing you the equation for calculating the volume of a sphere, I don't write it like this:
Volume = Z + (4/3 * pi * r^3) - Z
That would be STUPID. I publish the equation this way:
Volume = 4/3 * pi * r^3
Similarly, the equation for radiant power emittance at steady state does NOT say "X + ( (epsilon * sigma) * T^4) - X". It simply says (epsilon * sigma) * T^4. Because it's already known that X cancels out!!! There is no NET absorption of radiative power from cooler bodies. WE KNOW THIS FROM THERMODYNAMICS. So any radiative power that comes in, goes right back out. That's YOUR power in = power out!
You are trying to count power incoming from a cooler body as part of the radiative power out of the hotter body. That's counting it twice. I told you that... what was it now? 3 weeks ago? A month? And I told you not just once but several times.
That's just wrong. The number is the same regardless of the presence or absence of any cooler bodies.
And since nearby cooler bodes do NOT supply and net input to the hotter body, and do NOT affect the radiant power output of the hotter body, they do NOT affect any power input to the hotter body. QED
At my university, they are moving the climate coursework to the Department of Religious Studies. That's how progressive we are!
Haha! Yes, they are building a Church of Global Warming in a town in my state.
I understand they have their own version of the Bible. The first chapter is AnthropoGenesis.
Who should we believe... The guy who thinks that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that Obama faked his birth certificate, or the scientists.... Tough choice...
Who should we believe? Someone who gives the textbook answers to physics questions, or somebody who publicly lies about what other people wrote?
[A] I did not state that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. I merely stated that evidence indicates that we weren't told the whole truth about it. And the evidence does in fact indicate that. I did NOT, however, despite your claim here to the contrary, pretend to know what that truth is. So that's lie #1.
[B] I did not claim Obama faked his birth certificate. I DID state that the document posted on the internet by the Whitehouse as Obama's birth certificate has been digitally manipulated, not just "scanned". Because... it has. I downloaded it and examined it myself. There is zero chance it was a mere scan into Adobe Illustrator, as the Whitehouse claimed.
HOWEVER, I also stated, several times, that there are some perfectly legitimate reasons why the document might have been manipulated. So... I DID NOT claim "Obama's birth certificate is fake". That's lie #2.
[C] It isn't about who we should "believe", anyway. It's about what the evidence says.
[D] For somebody who claims to not be the same person as "khayman80", you sure show up in a lot of his conversations, and link to a lot of his old comments. Just EXACTLY in the same way he does.
You also like to ad-hominem, just as you did here, and just like he does. (In fact you linked to one of his huge ad-hominem attacks. And before you say "that's not ad-hominem", yes it is. Because you're asking "Who should we believe?" That's the whole of your "argument". It's not just ad-hominem it's 100% pure textbook ad-hominem.
So who, indeed, should we believe? The person with the evidence, or the people with straw-man and ad-hominem arguments?
For example, black body [archive.today] "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.
Not according to my thermodynamics textbooks. Simply stating this, and linking to yourself stating it again elsewhere, isn't any kind of argument.
In analyzing Spencer's challenge, we could have assumed black bodies. The only reason we didn't was because YOU insisted that you wanted to include an emissivity figure. But it still doesn't change the general principle.
In this particular case, the only substantive difference between black bodies and gray bodies is the presence of an emissivity term. Big deal. For black-body radiant power emittance per unit area, you simply omit the emissivity and get: sigma * T^4. The only change amounts to somewhat different figures for power out, and therefore electrical power in. There is still no absorption of any NET radiant power from the cooler chamber walls. That hasn't changed.
Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in?
Conservation of energy. Your own idea of power in through a boundary = power out through that boundary.
If your boundary is around JUST the heat source, the only NET power in is electricity, and the only NET power out is radiation. I see absolutely no reason (if we assume 100% efficiency) that these should not be equal.
At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:
electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)
This does not even remotely resemble my equation. The textbook thermodynamic answer is: radiant power out at steady-state, per unit area, equals (emissivity * Stefan-Boltzmann constant) * T^4.
That's all. The end. No chamber walls (they're cooler so they add no net energy to the heat source).
So total power out = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area
That's my equation. That's all the textbooks say I need. That's all heat transfer experts say I need.
Your continued assertion that, at steady-state, the presence of a nearby cooler body somehow affects the power output of a warmer body at known temperature is a bizarre violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The power output is what it is. It depends only on emissivity and temperature. Cooler bodies do not affect it. And if they don't affect the power out, they aren't affecting the power in. Again: your own power in = power out principle. QED
I don't get why you don't see that you're contradicting yourself. Or maybe you do, and you're just putting on some kind of show.
As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.
Huh? Are you reading the same page I am? According to the page linked to by OP, the deep ocean HASN'T warmed. Quote:
From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.
The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.
The direct implication -- in fact their conclusion -- was that there WAS NO warming in the deep ocean at all.
I dislike replying to trolls. But for the record and anyone who might actually buy your bullshit, your statements should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
I dislike replying to trolls, too, but I'm doing it anyway. Am I a nice person, or what?
The Antarctic ice maximum is SEA ice, just a thin sheet a meter or two thick, consistent with higher winds (guess why- increased thermal gradients) leaving source water exposed to the atmosphere.
I know what sea ice is. Are YOU aware that sea ice occurs around the (generally) warmest areas in Antarctica? And that it takes a constant -2 degrees C to form? You know what the temperatures have been over the LAND areas this year? Please look it up and tell me how that could add up to "melting".
Satellite data show that the land ice sheets have been adding mass just about every year for decades. The general trend of Antarctic ice has been up, not down. Even when they were screaming a couple of years ago about the Ross shelf and the western ice, the eastern ice was growing faster.
There is ALWAYS something you can point to and scream, and if you do it convincingly enough, lots of people will believe.
But the actual data do not support anything near panic over warming. I'd be willing to wager I've spent about 100 times as many hours looking at the data on this as you have.
In fact, if you're in the Northern hemisphere, if I were you I'd make sure my snow shovel is handy. Snow cover in SEPTEMBER was at an all-time high in the N. hemisphere this year.
Are you sure about that? People usually say the sea ice is increasing in extent, but that the land ice (the bit that might raise sea levels) is shrinking rapidly.
NASA and its climate partners (like GISS, NCDC) have been saying that. I don't know who else is saying that, unless they're quoting those sources.
RECORD sea ice this year. Sea ice forms around the generally WARMEST locations in Antarctic (lowest altitude, near the sea), and even so requires a consistent -2 degrees C to form. How is the rest supposed to be melting if it's colder than that?
Granted, temperature is not distributed completely evenly, and SOME part of the Antarctic is always melting. This allows the alarmists to scream and cry about the part that is. But the rest isn't. Quite the contrary: even when the alarmists were screaming about the "massive" melting of the Western Antarctic land ice sheet, the Eastern Antarctic was gaining more ice than the West was losing.
Of course it's Spring now in the Antarctic, and that will give the alarmists something to scream about as the record ice retreats a little. But if it's anything like the Northern Hemisphere was this year, even in summer it will continue to set new highs. As for the other hemisphere lately:
Does this look abnormally low to you? That's arctic ice right now.
Ice mass on Greenland is way above normal. And we're just coming out of summer!
Northern Hemisphere snow cover was at an all-time high in September.
NASA's own satellite temperature records often disagree with them. That's why they ignore it and you seldom hear about it.
They shouldn't. The alternative explainations as to where that energy is going are far more concerning. If the energy is not being disipated into the deeper oceans, then its being concentrated elsewhere. Candidates include: Siberian traps. Arctic/Antarctic pole melt. Upper ocean (And thats an "oh shit" possibility), and so on.
No, because we aren't actually observing any of those things. Antarctic ice recently set a historic record. And not just sea ice, either. Satellite data has been showing the land volume to be growing too. Arctic is is pretty darned normal. (Not quite at the 1981-2010 average, but pretty damned close.)
If the "missing" energy were in the upper ocean we would have known about it long ago, because we've been keeping upper ocean temperature records for decades.
Deep ocean was pretty much the last gasp for the "missing heat" idea. There may be other out-there possibilities, each one remoter than the next. So it's not impossible. Just very, very, very unlikely.
Allow my naivete to shine: What's the temperature of all of the rock that water is in contact with, and what's its thermal capacity relative to the water? Could it be that it's slow to warm as you need to warm all the rock it's in contact with?
Without getting technical, heat capacity is called "specific heat", and water has a relatively high specific heat. Using similar units, here are some examples:
Granite: 0.79
Basalt: 0.84
Sea Water: 3.93
So the heat "storage" capacity of liquid water is, very roughly, about 4.8 times that of rock.
Also just a phase change, from ice to water or vice versa at the same temperature, requires (or releases) a surprisingly large amount of energy.
It's hard to admit that you could've been wrong isn't it?
Especially after you've been gloating over your high horse position and have insulted everyone that disagreed.
Hah! You think this one is bad? I have stories.
But it does seem to be true: the term "denier" is increasingly pointing in the other direction now.
But the Stefan-Boltzmann law in your textbooks actually says:
radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T1^4.
Jane, don't you see how your equation for electrical heating power would only be true if "radiative power out = electrical heating power"?
This, from someone who keep saying "power in = power out"?
Of course I realize that. That is, TOTAL power out equals (power out per unit area) * area. When are you going to get it through your head that I'm not a moron?
The problem with your theory is that you have failed to show that electrical power in = anything BUT power out. It isn't heat transfer, as you have several times asserted. Heat transfer to a cooler body has NO relevance to the radiated power output of a warmer body at known temperature. And since it does not affect the power out, it does not affect the power in. QED.
You're trying to give me some crackpot story that the temperature of nearby bodies reduces the required INPUT power for the heat source. I understand what you're saying. I understood it from the beginning. You're just wrong, that's all. It would violate your own "power in = power out" rule. Which obviously you are not seeing, but which I saw right away.
Cooler bodies do NOT lend or transfer any net energy via radiation to warmer bodies. Period. Doing so would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, the only way a nearby cooler body could create some kind of condition of "less input power needed" for the warmer body, was via magic. You are proposing a magical idea, not physics. Because, again, this violates your "power in = power out" rule. If you draw your boundary around just the heat source itself, since there is NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN (which doesn't then just go right back OUT, yielding a net of 0), then the only way you can reduce your "electrical" power input is by violating the Second Law.
You're trying to play some kind of trick of adding the incoming radiation to the power output. But that's wrong. No NET incoming radiation is absorbed. Some may be absorbed, but it goes right back again, at equivalent radiant energy. But that power going back out again is not "added" to the object's radiant power, which is independent. Again, that would violate your "power in = power out" rule: you're counting it twice.
That is exactly WHY you can calculate power out of a gray body at steady-state with (e * s) * T^4. Because any incoming radiation is already accounted for. Which you aren't getting through your head, and so you're counting it twice.
And no, the cooler bodies don't "prevent" the hotter body from radiating exactly as much as it was radiating before. They don't "lend" their radiation to the hotter body.
ALL net energy flow in this system is from the center outward. There is no "backflow". It would violate the Second Law. And your "answer" for final temperature of the heat source did exactly that... you were "creating" something like 3kW (I forget the exact number now) from nothing.
And don't try to tell me you're calculating the TOTAL electrical power needed to both heat the source and cool the walls, because that would be a different experiment. Spencer stipulated "electrical power" to the heat source. He left power to the walls unstated, except to say that they are maintained at 0 degrees F. He did not say the power to the heat source AND to the walls was constant. He said the power to the heat source.
So if necessary, technically the power to the walls could vary, but not the power to the heat source. And if you're having a big issue with conservation of energy, that's probably where you're falling down.
You have kept trying to convince me that the cooler passive body somehow "holds the source power in" and thereby makes it hotter. But that's not the way it works. I repeat: EVERY textbook and online reference I've found -- and it's a significant list by now -- disagrees with you. Your own answer disagreed with you: it didn't balance the heat transfer equations, and power in <> power out.